Surisetty Naveen, Vs Union of India

The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 5 in issuing Look-out Circular (LOC) No.2024441946, dated 20.11.2025, against the petitioner at the instance of the de facto complainant and her family members in Crime No.223 of 2021 of Disha Women Police Station,

¶19

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

Visakhapatnam, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (CC No.1824 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam), as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the Look-Out Circular dated 20.11.2025 and to permit the petitioner to go abroad for short official assignment.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Director – Recruiting at SSI Staffing (India) Private Limited, Bangalore. His marriage with one Kushma was performed on 22.06.2019. Subsequently, due to misunderstandings between them, he filed a divorce case against his wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, vide MC No.2343 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Family Judge, Bangalore, which was transferred to the Family Court, Visakhapatnam, and renumbered as FCOP No.1969 of 2024. Petitioner states that after receiving notice in the said MC, his wife filed a criminal case against him and his family members in Crime No.223 of 2021 of Disha Women Police Station, Visakhapatnam, under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was

¶23

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

taken on file as CC No.1824 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. She also filed DVC No.15 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka. In addition to the above cases, she filed maintenance case vide FCOP No.901 of 2024 and for restitution of conjugal rights vide FCOP No.903 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Courtcum-V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, and the said cases are pending. Petitioner states that they filed Crl.P.Nos.4543 and 4757 of 2025 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.1824 of 2022 and DVC No.15 of 2024, wherein this Court granted interim orders dispensing with their appearance before the Court below. Petitioner further states that after receiving summons in the above said cases, he has been regularly attending before the Court below. When he was absent on one occasion, NBW was issued against him in CC No.1824 of 2022 and he immediately appeared within two days and the NBW was recalled by the Court below. He has been fully cooperating with the Investigating agency and regularly appearing before the Court below on all adjournments. Petitioner states that, recently when he was stopped at Bangalore International Airport by 3^rd

¶26

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶27

4

¶28

respondent because of Look-out Circular (LOC) dated 20.11.2025, he came to know that LOC was issued in December 2024 through 5^th respondent and pending against him. Despite his cooperation with the Investigating agency and recall of NBW, the LOC was issued against him illegally. He is required to travel abroad for a short official assignment as a part of his employment. His intention to travel abroad is purely for workrelated reasons and not to evade the judicial proceedings in any manner. He made a representation dated 26.11.2025 requesting respondent Nos.3, 5 and 8 to cancel/withdraw the LOC issued against him and to grant permission to travel abroad for short period and as no action has been taken thereon, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has to travel abroad for a short official assignment as a part of his employment, and by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, it would be a hurdle for the petitioner herein to travel abroad and in each and every Airport, he would be stopped and his credentials would be questioned by the immigration and he would be restrained in the Airport without issuing boarding pass.

¶30

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶31

5

¶32

He further submits that the petitioner would undertake to provide his travel itinerary, inform the Investigating Officer and return to India within the specified period and continue to attend and cooperate in future proceedings before the Court below.

¶33

The learned counsel relied on a decision in Rana Ayyub v. Union of India and another¹ , wherein it was held thus (paragraphs 11 and 12).

¶34

“11. In the particular facts of the case, it becomes evident that the LOC was issued in haste and despite the absence of any precondition necessitating such a measure. An LOC is a coercive measure to make a person surrender and consequentially interferes with petitioner's right of personal liberty and free movement. It is to be issued in cases where the accused is deliberately evading summons/arrest or where such person fails to appear in Court despite a Non-Bailable Warrant. In the instant case, there is no contradiction by the respondent to the submission of the petitioner that she has appeared on each and every date before the Investigating Agency when summoned, and hence, there is no cogent reason for presuming that the Petitioner would not appear before the Investigation Agency and hence, no case is made out for issuing the impugned LOC.

¶35

1 Order dated 04.04.2022 passed by the High Court of New Delhi in W.P. (CRL) 714 of 2022

¶36

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶37

6

¶38

The impugned LOC is accordingly liable to be set aside as being devoid of merits as well as for infringing the Human right of the Petitioner to travel abroad and to exercise her freedom of speech and expression. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned LOC is set aside and quashed. However, a balance has to be struck qua the right of the investigation agency to investigate the instant matter as well as the fundamental right of the petitioner of movement and free speech.”

¶39

He also placed reliance on a decision in Mannoj Kumar Jain & another v. Union of India & others² , wherein it was held thus: (paragraphs 20, 21 and 22).

¶40

“20. Apart from the reach of Look Out Circulars to cause immediate and irrevocable violation of a person's fundamental right of movement, Look Out Circulars have an inexplicably long shelf-life. Sub-paragraph J of the OM dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a LOC shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the originator and that no LOC shall be deleted automatically. Although these clauses cast an obligation on the originating agency to review the LOC on a quarterly / annual basis and submit proposals for deletion of the same, this is sadly found to be absent in

¶41

2 Order dated 09.06.2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in WPA No.22748 of 2022

¶42

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶43

7

¶44

most cases. Once a Look Out Circular is issued, it remains alive and kicking for almost all times to come. This spells dangerous repercussions on the person's right to freely move across and beyond the country and remain mobile. The Banks have been given untrammeled powers to issue, use and exploit the lockin power of a Look Out Circular without sufficient recourse being provided in law to the person at the receiving end of it. The expressions "... detrimental... to the economic interest of India" in the concerned OM is sufficient to sharpen the talons of a vindictive Bank to clip the wings of a vulnerable prey (in the metaphoric sense). The Writ Court hence can and should step in to check such unregulated abuse of power by Banks where the facts demand relief.

¶45

In view of the above reasons, the respondent No.8 Indian Overseas Bank cannot have any continuing reason to interfere with the petitioners' travel outside the country. The interference sought to be imposed by way of the Look Out Circular is arbitrary and without any rational basis. The CBI Courts, where the cases are pending, are free to pass orders or impose conditions as the Courts may deem fit. The petitioners have not claimed any reliefs against those proceedings in the writ petition. This Court however sees no reason to allow the impugned Look Out Circular to remain or be used against the petitioners in the absence of any acceptable

¶46

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶47

8

¶48

apprehension, let alone evidence, shown on behalf of the Bank.

¶49

WPA 22748 of 2022 is accordingly allowed by quashing the impugned Look Out Circular issued by the respondent No.8 Bank. The respondent No.8 and the other respondents shall not continue to give any further effect to the Look Out Circular which would have the effect of preventing the petitioners to travel outside India. The writ petition and all connected applications are disposed of accordingly.”

¶50

On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that if the Look Out Circular is cancelled, there is every likelihood of petitioner avoiding judicial process, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶51

Heard. Perused the record.

¶52

In the case on hand, petitioner states that after receiving summons in the above said cases, he has been regularly attending before the Court below. When he was absent on one occasion, NBW was issued against him in CC No.1824 of 2022 on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, and he immediately appeared within

¶53

two days and the NBW was recalled by the Court below. At

¶54

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶55

9

¶56

present, there is no NBW or any coercive process pending against him. He has been fully cooperating with the Investigating agency and regularly appearing before the Court below on all adjournments. He further states that, recently when he was stopped at Bangalore International Airport by 3^rd respondent because of Look-out Circular (LOC) dated 20.11.2025, he came to know that LOC was issued in December 2024 through 5^th respondent and pending against him. Despite his cooperation with the Investigating agency and recall of NBW, the LOC was issued against him illegally, without any prior notice to him. Petitioner states that he required to travel abroad as a part of his employment and professional responsibilities. In such circumstances, it is essential for the petitioner herein to travel abroad to meet his professional responsibilities. Look Out Circular causes an immediate and irrevocable violation of a person’s fundamental right of movement.

¶57

Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the respondent/police only with a view to detain a person or to see

¶58

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶59

10

¶60

that he will cooperate with the trial. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 498-A IPC, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is evading arrest, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial irregularities or the offences which are against the Society. In such cases, the respondent/police can resort in opening the LOCs against the accused, not permitting them to leave the country. If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued. In the case on hand, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC and the offence is not so grave and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening LOC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, opening of the LOC against the accused, will

¶61

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶62

11

¶63

affect his career. In most of the cases under matrimonial offences, it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. As such, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to open LOC against the petitioner herein.

¶64

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and keeping in view the principles laid down in the aforesaid precedents, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the Look Out Circular issued against the petitioner would not be required. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

As a sequel thereto, the interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶66

_______________________

¶67

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J

¶68

Date: 20.01.2026 Nsr

¶69

SRK, J WP No.456 of 2026

¶70

12